M/s Salus Pharmaceuticals and Others v. Union of India

Mr. Jain, learned counsel representing the petitioners, vehemently argued that entire prosecution instituted by the Drugs Inspector appointed by the Central Government is without jurisdiction and without lawful authority. He submitted that executive functions under Chapter-IV of the Drugs Act shall essentially be exercised by the Drugs Inspector appointed by the State Government, and certainly not by the one appointed by the Central Government. He further argued that neither the Constitution nor any Act made by the Parliament, including the Drugs Act and the Drugs Rules, provide for exercise of the executive functions in relation to Chapter-IV by any authority of the Central Government, including the Drugs Inspector appointed by it, rather Drugs Inspector appointed by the Central Government shall, to the exclusion of the State Government, exercise 5 executive functions in relation to Chapter III relating to import of drugs and cosmetics, but certainly not in relation to Chapter IV. He submitted that Drugs Inspector who had filed complaint and at relevant time conducted the investigation, have not been validly appointed in terms of Section 21 of the Drugs Act by virtue of the gazette notification specifically for such area and for such classes of drugs for the purposes of their exercising the jurisdiction and any government order would not be in accordance with express language of Section 21 of the Drugs Act.

6. Mr. Jain further argued that Section 34 of the Drugs Act encapsulate the concept of vicarious liability on the persons, who are Incharge of, and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company for making them guilty of the offences committed by the company, which terms indubitably includes the partnership firms. He submitted that though petitioners herein are partners of petitioner No.1-firm, but they could neither be termed Incharge nor responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm so as to fasten vicarious liability. While making this Court peruse complaint, which is sought to be quashed, Mr. Jain strenuously argued that no role has been assigned to petitioners No.2 to 5 in the firm. Complaint has been filed in a casual and mechanical manner without ascertaining the true and correct facts rendering the entire prosecution as a nullity. He submitted that petitioners No.2 to 5 have nothing to do with the day-to-day affairs of the 6 firm. For that matter, the manufacturing and analysis are done under the supervision of technical staff duly endorsed on the licenses issued by the competent authority. He submitted that day-to-day affairs of the firm are being taken/carried by the Plant Manager, who is appointed by petitioner No.1-firm, hence, in no circumstances, petitioners No.2 to 5 could be termed to be the persons Incharge of, and responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business.

7. While referring to Rule 45 of the 1945 Rules, Mr. Jain submitted that test and analysis of the sample is necessarily required to be conducted within a period of sixty days in terms of amendment vide GSR 103(E) dated 02.02.2017. He submitted that further proviso to the aforesaid Rule would make it abundantly clear that in case the sample could not be analysed within such period, the Government Analyst shall seek extension of time from the Government giving specific reasons for delay in such retesting or analysis. The insertion of the period, within which the test is to be carried out by the Government Analyst by virtue of afore amendment, is mandatory, and not directory. However, in the instant case, afore mandate of provision of Rule 45 has been violated with impunity. He submitted that drug in question was manufactured in January 2019, sample was drawn on 28.08.2019 and adverse report on Form 13 was issued on 05.12.2019. During this period of approximately three months, it does not come on record as to under what circumstances, the subject drug was stored, more 7 so, when the product is highly unstable and has specified storing condition. He submitted that there is nothing in the complaint or documents annexed with the complaint to establish that the subject drug was properly stored. Lastly, Mr. Jain argued that principles of natural justice were not adhered to by the Court concerned before issuing process because no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioners, rather simply on the basis of complaint Court concerned without verifying the correctness of the averments proceeded to issue summons, which being totally contrary to law deserves to be interfered with.

8. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-UOI has filed reply, wherein facts, as have been noticed hereinabove, have not been disputed, rather stands admitted. It is averred in the reply that all accused are the persons, who are responsible for the conduct and affairs of the accused-firm/company and as such, are liable to be punished under relevant provisions of law, as detailed in the complaint. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, learned Central Government Counsel, while referring to Section 21 of the Drugs Act submitted that Central Government or State Government may by notification in the official gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit, having the prescribed qualifications, to be Inspectors for such areas as may be assigned to them by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be. He submitted that as per Section 21 of the Drugs Act, appointment of a person as an 8 Inspector is to be notified in the official gazette for such areas as may be assigned to him by the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be. He submitted that it does not prohibit the Government from appointing more than one person for an area, rather empowers to do so and further it does not restrict the area assigned to an Inspector to a particular segment of the Country or State, rather it empowers the Government for appointment of Inspectors for such areas as may be assigned to them. He submitted that Drugs Inspector was appointed by the Government of India under Section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for whole of India vide Gazette Notification No.F.No.A12025/03/2012-D dated 07.11.2013. While making this Court peruse averments contained in the complaint sought to be quashed, learned Central Government Counsel attempted to argue that required pleas with regard to day-to-day involvement of the petitioners in the affairs of the company have been made.

9. While referring to Section 32(2) of the Act, Mr. Shirshoo, learned Central Government Counsel, argued that complaint with regard to offences given in Chapter III is necessarily required to be filed before the learned Sessions Judge and as such, there was no occasion, if any, for Judicial Magistrate to commit the case to learned Sessions Judge. Mr. Shirshoo further submitted that once learned Sessions Judge has already taken cognizance and summoned the accused on the basis of material adduced on record by the complainant, this Court may not exercise power 9 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to undo the action taken by the complainant as well as competent Court of law, after having seen detailed record.

10. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and gone through the record of the case.

11. Before ascertaining the genuineness and correctness of the submissions and counter submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the parties vis-à-vis prayer made in the instant petition, this Court deems it necessary to discuss/elaborate the scope and competence of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.PC.

12. In this regard, reliance is place upon Amish Devgan vs Union of India and Ors, (2021) 1 SCC 1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “(vii) Conclusion and relief

116. At this stage and before recording our final conclusion, we would like to refer to decision of this Court in Pirthi Chand [State of H.P. v. Pirthi Chand, (1996) 2 SCC 37 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 210] wherein it has been held : (SCC pp. 44-45, paras 12- 13) “12. It is thus settled law that the exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinise the FIR/charge-sheet/complaint. In deciding whether the case is rarest of rare cases to scuttle the prosecution in its inception, it first has to get into the grip of the matter whether the allegations constitute the offence. It must be remembered that FIR is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into cognizable offence. After the investigation is conducted (sic concluded) and the charge- sheet is laid, the prosecution produces the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code in support of the charge-sheet. At 10 that stage it is not the function of the court to weigh the pros and cons of the prosecution case or to consider necessity of strict compliance with the provisions which are considered mandatory and effect of its non- compliance. It would be done after the trial is concluded. The court has to prima facie consider from the averments in the charge-sheet and the statements of witnesses on the record in support thereof whether court could take cognizance of the offence on that evidence and proceed further with the trial. If it reaches a conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out, no further act could be done except to quash the charge-sheet. But only in exceptional cases i.e. in rarest of rare cases of mala fide initiation of the proceedings to wreak private vengeance issue of process under Criminal Procedure Code is availed of. A reading of a [Vide Corrigendum dated 20-3- 1996 issued from Residential Office of Hon'ble Mr Justice K. Ramaswamy.] complaint or FIR itself does not disclose at all any cognizable offence — the court may embark upon the consideration thereof and exercise the power.”

13. In the case of Kaptan Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2021) 9 SCC 35, the Supreme Court held as under : “9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the investigating officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482 CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint only are 11 required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered. However, thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation. Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held that that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material.

12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.”

14. Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court in Abhishek Singh vs Ajay Kumar and Ors., (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1313, held as under: “9. The scope of the Court's power to quash and set aside proceedings is well-settled to warrant any restatement. While the arguments advanced have the potential to raise many issues for consideration, we must first 12 satisfy ourselves as to the propriety of the exercise of such power by the High Court. The task of the High Court, when called upon to adjudicate an application seeking to quash the proceedings, is to see whether, prima facie, an offence is made out or not. It is not to examine whether the charges may hold up in the Court. In doing so, the area of action is circumscribed. In Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab, it was held: “8. It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding.”

15. In that view of the matter, we hold that the High Court had improperly quashed the proceedings initiated by the appellant. It stands clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the matter, and the guilt or innocence of the respondents has to be established in the trial, in accordance with the law. The proceedings out of the subject FIR, mentioned in paragraph 2 are revived and restored to the file of the concerned Court.”

15. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, 1977 (2) SCC 699, held that High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC is entitled to quash the proceedings, if it comes to the conclusion that 13 allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.

16. Subsequently, in case titled State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Apex Court while elaborately discussing the scope and competence of High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC laid down certain principles governing the jurisdiction of High Court to exercise its power. After passing of aforesaid judgment, issue with regard to exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.PC, again came to be considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case bearing Criminal Appeal No.577 of 2017 (arising out of SLP (CrL.) No. 287 of 2017) titled Vineet Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., wherein it has been held that saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose i.e. court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.

17. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, relying upon its earlier judgment titled as Rajiv Thapar and Ors v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330. 14

18. Reliance in this regard is also placed upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.N. John Vs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7, which reads as under: “7. As far as the quashing of criminal cases is concerned, it is now more or less well settled as regards the principles to be applied by the court. In this regard, one may refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein this Court has summarized some of the principles under which FIR/complaints/criminal cases could be quashed in the following words: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same 15 do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to a private and personal grudge.” (emphasis added)

8. Of the aforesaid criteria, clause no. (1), (4) and (6) would be of relevance to us in this case. In clause (1) it has been mentioned that where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, then the FIR or the complaint can be quashed. As per clause (4), where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order dated by the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the CrPC, and in such a situation, the FIR can be quashed. 16 Similarly, as provided under clause (6), if there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the CrPC or the concerned Act under which the criminal proceedings are instituted, such proceedings can be quashed.”

19. Reliance is further placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185, which reads as under: “8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision. However, given the broad and profound nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice.

9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of several decades, has laid down the principles and guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre-empting the Prosecution from building its case before the Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia, contemplate the following situations : (i) the criminal complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature; (v.) the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations; and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and compound the dispute amicably (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)

20. It is quite apparent from the bare perusal of aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking 17 vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him/her due to private and personal grudge, High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC can proceed to quash the proceedings.

21. Now being guided by the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court would make an endeavor to examine and consider the prayer made in the instant petition vis-à-vis factual matrix of the case.

22. It is apparent from the bare perusal of the Section 34 of the Act that a Company is primarily liable for the commission of an offence punishable under the Act. As per afore provision of law, vicarious liability has been fastened upon a person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business. Section 34 of the Act reads as under: “34. Offences by companies.— (1)Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.”

23. Aforesaid provision of law deals with offence, if any, committed by company. Aforesaid provision of law provides that where an offence 18 under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time of commission of offence, was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Proviso to the aforesaid section provides that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. Since, in the case at hand also, Mr. Suresh Chandra Dubey and Mr. Praveen Singh were in- charge of and were responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, liability cannot be fastened on petitioners, especially petitioner nos. 2 to 5, being partners of the firm.

24. In this regard, reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Susela Padmavathy Amma v. Bharti Airtel Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 311 wherein it has been held that a person can be vicariously liable if he is in charge and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business. Relevant paras of the judgment reads as under: “18. In the case of State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal (1998) 5 SCC 343, this Court observed thus: “8. Nonetheless, we find that the impugned judgment of the High Court has got to be upheld for an altogether different reason. Admittedly, the three respondents were being prosecuted as directors of the manufacturers with the aid of Section 34(1) of the Act, which reads as under: 19 “34. Offences by companies.—(1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this subsection shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. It is thus seen that the vicarious liability of a person for being prosecuted for an offence committed under the Act by a company arises if, at the material time, he was in charge of and was also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. Simply because a person is a director of the company, it does not necessarily mean that he fulfils both the above requirements so as to make him liable. Conversely, without being a director, a person can be in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. From the complaint in question, we, however, find that except for a bald statement that the respondents were directors of the manufacturers, there is no other allegation to indicate, even prima facie, that they were in charge of the company and also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business.”

19. It could thus be seen that this Court had held that simply because a person is a director of the company, it does not necessarily mean that he fulfils the twin requirements of Section 34(1) of the said Act so as to make him liable. It has been held that a person cannot be made liable unless, at the material time, he was in charge of and was also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business.

20. In the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra), this Court was considering the question as to whether it was sufficient to make the person liable for being a director of a company under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This Court considered the definition of the word “director” as defined in Section 2(13) of the Companies Act, 1956. This Court observed thus: 20 “8. ……. There is nothing which suggests that simply by being a director in a company, one is supposed to discharge particular functions on behalf of a company. It happens that a person may be a director in a company, but he may not know anything about the day-to-day functioning of the company. As a director, he may be attending meetings of the Board of Directors of the company, where they usually decide policy matters and guide the course of business of the company. It may be that a Board of Directors may appoint sub-committees consisting of one or two directors out of the Board of the company who may be made responsible for the day-today functions of the company. These are matters which form part of the resolutions of the Board of Directors of a company. Nothing is oral. What emerges from this is that the role of a director in a company is a question of fact depending on the peculiar facts in each case. There is no universal rule that a director of a company is in charge of its everyday affairs. We have discussed about the position of a director in a company in order to illustrate the point that there is no magic as such in a particular word, be it director, manager or secretary. It all depends upon the respective roles assigned to the officers in a company. …..”

21. It was held that merely because a person is a director of a company, it is not necessary that he is aware of the day-today functioning of the company. This Court held that there is no universal rule that a director of a company is in charge of its everyday affairs. It was, therefore, necessary to aver as to how the director of the company was in charge of the dayto-day affairs of the company or responsible to the affairs of the company. This Court, however, clarified that the position of a managing director or a joint managing director in a company may be different. This Court further held that these persons, as the designation of their office suggests, are in charge of a company and are responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. To escape liability, they will have to prove that when the offence was committed, they had no knowledge of the offence or that they exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.

22. In the case of Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 16 SCC 1, this Court observed thus: “17. …… Every person connected with the Company will not fall into the ambit of the provision. Time and again, it has been asserted by this Court 21 that only those persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the time of the commission of an offence will be liable for criminal action. A Director, who was not in charge of and was not responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the relevant time, will not be liable for an offence under Section 141 of the NI Act. In National Small Industries Corpn. [National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal, (2010) 3 SCC 330 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 677 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1113] this Court observed : (SCC p. 336, paras 13- 14) “13. Section 141 is a penal provision creating vicarious liability, which, as per settled law, must be strictly construed. It is therefore not sufficient to make a bald, cursory statement in a complaint that the Director (arrayed as an accused) is in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company without anything more as to the role of the Director. But the complaint should spell out as to how and in what manner Respondent 1 was in charge of or was responsible to the accused Company for the conduct of its business. This is in consonance with a strict interpretation of penal statutes, especially where such statutes create vicarious liability.

14. A company may have a number of Directors and to make any or all the Directors as accused in a complaint merely on the basis of a statement that they are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company without anything more is not a sufficient or adequate fulfilment of the requirements under Section 141.”(emphasis in original)

18. In Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D.H. Mehta [Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D.H. Mehta,